Court holds that prosecution without prior written warning for labelling deficiencies under Rule 32(e) of PFA Rules, 1955, is an abuse of process, even in cases involving imported food
In a significant judgment delivered on September 14, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, quashed criminal proceedings initiated against Kancor Ingredients Ltd. and others for alleged misbranding of a food product due to labelling deficiencies under Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (PFA Rules). The Court emphasized the mandatory requirement of issuing a written warning before initiating prosecution for a first-time violation relating solely to labelling deficiencies, in line with the Government of Delhi’s Notification dated 20.09.1985.
The case arose from a complaint filed after a sample of "Hot and Spicy Marinade" was found lacking a distinctive batch number, lot number, or code number on its label, violating Rule 32(e) of the PFA Rules. The food article, imported by Kancor Flavours and Extracts Limited from Singapore and supplied to a restaurant in New Delhi, was not alleged to be adulterated or unsafe—only misbranded due to labelling deficiencies.
The Public Analyst’s report confirmed the misbranding but did not find adulteration. The prosecution was filed against multiple accused, including Kancor Ingredients Ltd., its directors, and the restaurant management. However, the petitioners contended that the prosecution was contrary to the established policy under the Notification dated 20.09.1985, which mandates a written warning for first-time labelling offences before any criminal proceedings can be initiated.
The Court meticulously analyzed the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA Act), particularly Section 2(ix)(k) defining “misbranded” food articles due to labelling non-compliance, and Section 5 prohibiting the import of misbranded food. The Court held that the Notification’s policy of issuing a written warning applies equally to imported food articles and that the absence of any prior warning rendered the prosecution unsustainable.
The Court further distinguished between technical labelling violations and substantive adulteration offences, noting that the Notification exempts cases involving adulteration from the warning requirement. Since the present case involved only a technical labelling violation and was a first offence, the continuation of prosecution without prior warning amounted to abuse of the legal process.
While the Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioners for the alleged violation of Rule 32(e) and Section 5 of the PFA Act, it allowed the complaint to proceed against other accused concerning violations of Rule 50(7) of the PFA Rules related to display of cooking medium information in the restaurant.
This judgment reinforces the procedural safeguards designed to protect food industry players from premature prosecution for minor labelling deficiencies and underscores the importance of following notified policies to ensure fair and just legal processes.
Bottom Line:
A first-time violation of Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, concerning labelling deficiencies, requires a written warning as per the Notification dated 20.09.1985. Prosecution for such violations without issuing the requisite warning is unsustainable.
Statutory provision(s):
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 Section 2(ix)(k), Section 5, Section 16(1), Section 7; Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 Rule 32(e), Rule 50(7); Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482; Notification dated 20.09.1985 (Government of NCT of Delhi)
Kancor Ingredients Ltd. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2978372
